db-derby-dev mailing list archives

If there is a good chance of Mustang and JDBC4 being ready by Sept/Oct, we
should avoid another release in August. Rick doesn't seem to foresee a
Mustang schedule slip and given
incomplete nature of Grant & Revoke authorization, I vote to keep one
release in Sep/Oct.
Satheesh
On 4/26/06, Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hillegas@sun.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Yes, I'm still planning to manage a JDBC4-capable Derby release to go GA
> soon after Mustang (jdk1.6) goes GA in September/October. Bryan and Knut
> have expressed some concern that the Mustang schedule may slip. Although
> I do not foresee a Mustang schedule slip, I acknowledge the risk here.
> My plans assume that Mustang will hit its deliverables.
>
> Regards,
> -Rick
>
> Andrew McIntyre wrote:
>
> >On 4/26/06, Knut Anders Hatlen <Knut.Hatlen@sun.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>A bug-fix release on the 10.1 branch is very good for Derby in my
> >>opinion, but I would also really like to see that we got all the new
> >>features out to our users.
> >>
> >>I would therefore like to have a 10.2
> >>release not depending on the JDBC 4.0 schedule (which means that the
> >>release most likely will be without JDBC 4.0 support).
> >>
> >>
> >
> >So what you're saying is that the release you are proposing is
> >definitely going to be without JDBC 4.0? Or are you saying that
> >somehow JDBC 4.0 support might be included in your release?
> >
> >
> >
> >>Is this something the community wants and would support?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Rick, are you still planning to have a release with JDBC 4.0 in the
> >Sept./Oct. timeframe? And does it really make sense to have two such
> >feature releases so close together, within two months of each other?
> >
> >If Rick is still planning another feature release - which would now be
> >10.3 I suppose - in Sept./Oct., then it's a -1 from me. Personally,
> >I'm not much interested just in the churn and the time involved in
> >testing two such feature releases so close together right after a
> >maintenance release.
> >
> >andrew
> >
> >
>
>